I need some more practice to make sure I can win at my upcoming varsity tournament. So I put a limit on this for as good or better than me..

This round will be in LD Format, therefore there must be
Framework- Value Structure or Burden
Contentions
Claims
Warrants
and Impacts

I'm looking forward to a good opponent and a good round, I really need someone who understands exactly what LD and how to debate LD.

First round is for acceptance
Second round Aff presents case Neg presents case/rebuttal
Third round Aff rebuttal Neg rebuttal
Fourth round Final Aff rebuttal, then Neg doesn't post up a final rebuttal so it can be like a real LD round.

Since Society cannot always guarantee that Justice is dealt affirm the Resolution: It is Morally Permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

I will now offer Definitions for this round:

Repeated Action-Actions that happen many times or reoccur again and again
Merriam Webster

Domestic Violence: an escalating pattern of violence or intimidation by an intimate partner, which is used to gain power and control. 2008 NCPEA

Therefore, avoiding the argument of simple random acts of violence since the abuse is being done in a pattern and methodically, it is not at all random.

With this definition of Domestic Violence we can see it entails oppression. The reason for that oppression is because the abused are viewed as weak and masochistic. These statistics from the U.S Department of Justice show how estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend to 3 million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year. Women are usually the abused because they are seen as weak and masochistic creatures of society.

Therefore my value for this round is justice.

Just as D.A. Clarke, a feminist essayist and activist, writes in her 1991 essay Justice is a Woman with a Sword

In male fantasy, women are always powerless to defend themselves from hurt and humiliation. Worse, they enjoy them. Treatment that would drive the average self-respecting man to desperate violence makes these fantasy-women tremble, breathe heavily, and moan with desire: abuse and embarrassment are their secret needs. The "womanliness" invented by pornographers is a deep masochism, which renders women as powerless to defend self and others as the sweetness-and-light female patience and martyrdom of Christian romanticism. It's but a short step from the ladylike and therefore ineffectual face-slaps of Nice Girls to the "hot and steamy surrender" in the dominant male's brawny embrace.

When we as a society recognize we have this view of women then it is time to recognize the oppression that goes on in everyday life. Oppression cannot coexist with Justice because oppression usually entails taking ones natural rights to liberty/freedom and even of their physical sanctity or their right to life. The point of justice is to ensure those rights stay intact. Men usually commit domestic violence to be the "Alpha-Male" If anyone defies him then they will be beaten. This is immoral and wrong because there is no justification to simply beat someone just for dominance. When these beatings continue and Society fails to stop them Justice has been lost.

My Value Criterion is to reduce oppression.

1st We should look to the reduction of oppression because the resolved entails some type of oppression through "Repeated Domestic Violence" So whoever can better reduce that oppression should win the round.

2nd Justice is very difficult to gain so long as oppression exists because justice aims to protect innocent people's rights and the taking of violator's rights while oppression (especially in Domestic Violence cases) is the taking of innocent people's rights as well as the violator's rights to remain intact. Therefore reducing oppression is a pre-requisite to gain Justice

Contention I: Society sometimes fails to deliver justice to women who have been beaten, raped, etc.

D.A. Clarke 2

There are several ways to prevent crimes from happening. One is education and reason, and our effort to bring up children to be good adults. Then comes elementary preparedness and awareness on the part of the innocent. Then there is active resistance and self-defense when a crime is attempted; lastly, there is the establishment of consequences for the perpetrator. Every time a man molests his daughter and still keeps his place in the family and community—every time a man sexually harasses a female employee and still keeps his job or his business reputation--every time a rapist or femicide gets a token sentence--there is a terrible lack of consequence for the commission of a crime.

D.A. Clarke 3

We disagree as a society about the level of "punishment" which should be enforced. We can't agree whether murderers should themselves be killed. Most of us would agree that hanging is too severe a penalty for stealing a loaf of bread, but is it too severe a penalty for hacking a woman to death? Some would say yes and some no. Others think we should abandon the concept of punishment altogether. While we argue about these things, women are steadily and consistently being insulted, molested, assaulted and murdered. And most of the men who are doing these things are suffering no consequences at all.

Sometimes Society either delivers very little Justice or at times no Justice at all, by Affirming the resolution we will better be able to achieve Justice by allowing those that have been abused the encouragement to fight back when they can no longer rely on Societies aid Therefore allowing them to themselves reduce oppression.

Contention II: Through Affirming there is a possibility to end Domestic Violence

D.A. Clarke 4

If the risk involved in attacking a woman were greater, there might be fewer attacks. If women defended themselves violently, the amount of damage they were willing to do to would-be assailants would be the measure of their seriousness about the limits beyond which they would not be pushed. If more women killed husbands and boyfriends who abused them perhaps there would be less abuse. A large number of women refusing to be pushed any further would erode, the myth of the masochistic female which threatens all our lives. Violent resistance to attack has its advantages all round.

D.A. Clarke 5

If women become more violent, will the world be a more violent place? Perhaps, but it's not a simple equation of addition. We will have to subtract any violence that women prevent. So we will have to subtract a large number of rapes and daily humiliations suffered by women who today cannot or will not defend themselves. We might have to subtract six or seven murders that would have been committed by a latter-day Zodiac Killer, except that his first intended victim killed him instead.

In the context of the resolution if women attacked their abusers then there would be less abuse. In two ways: 1 Women won't be continuously seen as weak and masochistic creatures anymore therefore Dominant Brawny men will be less likely to abuse which reduces the amount of potential oppression. 2The abuser that the woman would either injure severely or kill will not be allowed to move on and just start abusing more and more women thus reducing even more potential oppression.

Under View

Aff meets Self Defense

As Jane Campbell Explains

"The law of self-defense arises from longstanding principles governing behavior between those involved in aggression, but developed apart from the relationship between spouses. The law needs to recognize that batterers are different than others who make threats. They operate much like the way terrorists do by instilling fear that an attack is forthcoming, and thus, creating constant anxiety and fear in their victims. The sustained trauma created by an abusive relationship differs from other situations in which self-defense is used."

As Elizabeth Ayyilidz Explains

"Several aspects of the traditional self-defense doctrine are a difficult fit for women. As many commentators have argued, the law of self-defense is a male construct, defined by how men respond to violence. Rather than recognize and respect the fact that domestic violence is different, and often less avoidable, than other types of violence, the law often simply metes out unjust and overly harsh results for those whose self-defense does not fit precisely within the traditional, male-based canon."

Starting with the AC:On DA Clarke 1, who says that women are oppressed, and warrants it with analysis about porn.1. Fantasies played out in porn are not an adequate indicator of society's belief, not all men seek to rape women, this is not the reason why women are portrayed as weak.2. Women themselves have fantasies, in which they are dominated, and since it is impossible to be oppressed by your own fantasy, then it is impossible to say that they are oppressed by the same pornographic view which they themselves hold.Castleman reports"From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them."Women have these fantasies, therefore, these fantasies don't oppress women.Now that we have established that the AC doesn't link domestic violence to women being portrayed as weak I turn the whole case because he causes more oppression of women than I do. His whole case focuses on women, and therefore, he portrays women as the weaker "victim." Women being portrayed as the victim is a stronger link to oppression than porn fantasies. Wood states"[Stereotypically] women are pretty, deferential, and focused on home, family and caring for others. Subordinate to men, they are usually cast as victims, angels, martyrs, and loyal wives and helpmates."[Note: bold added for emphasis]

By portraying women as the victim my opponent furthers this stereotypical mindset of women as weak victims which he admits is the primary cause of domestic violence. Therefore, he only furthers the mindset which he wishes to eradicate. His entire case is offense for me.

Remember, he said "Women are usually the abused because they are seen as weak and masochistic creatures of society." and at the point in which he perpetuates the mindset of women being weak and masochistic creatures then he causes more abuse. This turns his whole case. Furthermore, this argument is more important than any other in the round. The outcome of this round does not affect anything, regarding domestic abuse happening in the world. However, the discourse which he uses, the discourse that portrays women as weak does affect society. If you endorse his AC then you also endorse his mindset that says that women are weak victims, and therefore, you endorse the mindset which causes abuse. The only way to prevent abuse is to negate to reject this mindset.

On Contention 1, which says that society fails to provide justice1. DA Clarke provides no numbers, we have no idea how often society fails2. Affirming the resolution, which would lead to moral permissibility of murder as a response to domestic violence, doesn't necessarily solve3. Society does the best it can, affirming leads to a slippery slope of vigilante justice, because if women are allowed to kill their abusers, then what will stop vigilante justice from being performed in other crimes? Where do we draw the line?On Contention 2, which says that affirming would solve the problemOn his first link, which is about the perception of women1. Turn: By portraying women as the victim in the round he actually perpetuates the idea that women are weak. He is the one, in this round, who is oppressing women more. Therefore, I control the internal link on solvency because affirming heightens the view of women as weak, and therefore, affirming actually causes domestic violence.2. If you buy the DA Clarke cards then this won't solve because men will continue to fantasize about women being abused regardless of reality.On his second link, which says that women fighting back will deter1. This assumes that the abuser is rational, if the abuser is irrational then he won't be detered2. This doesn't justify the murders themselves3. No quantified evidence, how much will it deter abusers?On Self DefenseOn Campbell1. Campbell never justifies murder as a response, Campbell just says that the trauma is different, not that the trauma justifies murder.2. Campbell is talking about the law's treatment of self-defense. Therefore, if you buy Campbell, then that takes out his first contention because Campbell assumes that the law has the ability to solveOn Ayyilidz1. No warrant. Do you really think that the law's construct of self-defense is male-based?2. Turn: Remember that he furthers the perception of weak women because his case portrays women as always the victim, so if the law is truly flawed, then he worsens that problem because he perpetuates the flawed mindset of women being weak.3. This card also does not justify murder

NCI value Justice. However, justice should be defined first. This must be the definition used in this round because my opponent had a chance to define it but chose not to. Justice is defined by Oxford Dictionary as "the quality of being fair and reasonable" and "the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:" Therefore, I win right here because in order for justice, which is both of our values, to be upheld the law must do it. Therefore, by advocating vigilante action my opponent destroys the link to his own value. Furthermore, my opponent must prove that death is a fair and reasonable punishment for repeated domestic violence.My value criterion is equality. Because justice is contingent on fair and reasonable punishment, this should be preferred. Remember, even if you don't buy this, I control the internal link to his VC, which is solving oppression because he creates more oppression.Contention 1: Deadly force is not an equivalent response to repeated domestic violence.Kant writesThere is no likeness or proportion between life, however painful, and deathTherefore, no matter how painful an abuser makes the person he or she is abusing, that is not equivalent to death. Therefore, death is not an appropriate response.Stairs agreesKant offers perhaps the purest (though not necessarily the clearest) statement of the retributive theory of punishment. The idea in brief is simple: it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons. Legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the core motive in punishing someone is to deter others, or to protect society, or to set an example, then the person punished is wronged; their humanity has not been respected. So punishment must always be in response to guilt, but Kant in effect goes further: the suggestion that seems to come through this reading is not only that guilt is a necessary condition for punishment, but that the guilty must be punished or else justice and equality, the only proper foundations for the law, will not have been served. Equality is the principle that must be used in selecting a punishment. Kant uses a metaphor. He refers to the principle of equality as the one by which the pointer of the scale of justice is made to incline no more to one side than to the other.Furthermore, revenge is bad and immoralStairs furthers[E]ven a person guilty of murder is to be treated with a certain sort of dignity, because even the murderer is still a person -- still an end in himself. Punishments that don't respect the humanity of the criminal are outside the pale of morality. They are not justice, they are pure, unadulterated revenge. And it would be a mistake to confuse what Kant means by "retribution" with revenge. The instinct for revenge is a natural one; so is the instinct to take things we want that don't belong to us, as anyone who has spent time around young children will testify. But morality requires us to rise above our mere instincts. That's what makes it hard to be a virtuous person. And in the sphere of punishment, morality requires that we respect the humanity of the person we are punishing. [Note:brackets not in original]Negate for 3 reasons1. Reject the mindset2. Reject inequality/vigilante injustice3. His case's warrants are weak, no solvency

The responses he makes to the underview are not sufficient enough to take out the underview.

===Campbell===

His first response is that Campbell never justifies murder, but Campbell takes about how the resolution is considerably self-defense because the trauma that one withstands in a domestic abuse relationship makes them feel an attack is always forthcoming at the point where the action of killing is considered self-defense then we affirm because Self-Defense is a justification defense. He totally mishandles Campbell, Campbell proves how the resolved falls under the Self-Defense doctrine, not that the self-defense doctrine is justified, which it already is by law.

His second response is that if you buy Campbell then that means the law is able to solve for Domestic Abuse. This however is wrong. What Campbell advocates is that the law considers the action one that is justified and therefore the action is not considered immoral but morally permitted since it falls under the self-defense doctrine and is necessary to solve for the crime.

===Ayyilidz===

His first response to Ayyilidz is that there is no warrant, but Ayyilidz is the warrant. The law of self-defense is how men or "Stronger people" are able to respond to violence therefore Women or "Weaker People" are simply ignored when they can't respond like stronger people do.

He then tries to turn Ayyilidz but I don't further any mindset of Women or Abuse Victims being weak, rather I take steps to eradicate the mindset. When the roles are switched then this is the only time where women or abuse victims will be seen as strong individuals and are able to be rid of their own oppression when they can no longer rely on societies aid.

His third response is that this card doesn't justify murder, here he is right. Rather this card justifies attacking your abuser with deadly force behind their backs.

This is where you can already cast your ballad for affirmative because the Affirmation is justified by the Self-Defense Doctrine. Lets move further.

===Framework===

My opponent and I share a value so leave that be, but he tries to say I can't link into Justice because I promote Vigilante Justice. I have two responses.

1) Vigilante Justice is still a delivering of justice no where in his definitions does it say justice must be delivered by courts or police. Neither does it say an individual cannot be the one to administer law or authority. Therefore I am NOT de-linked from the Value of Justice because I can still uphold Justice even if I "promote" Vigilante Justice.

2) I don't promote Vigilante Justice. The language of Moral Permissibility is Societies tolerance for an action. Therefore actions that are morally permissible are tolerated by society and encouraged to be taken. Therefore at the point where I affirm, I am not affirming vigilante justice because the affirmative is saying that society should tolerate and encourage the action being taken.

At the point where the Negative doesn't provide any kind of solvency to the crime of Domestic Abuse being perpetrated then he can NEVER link into his value criterion of promoting equality because he allows Domestic Abuse to continue and that certainly is NOT equal. Don't let him try to provide any argument that says there are methods in which society has used to prevent Domestic Abuse because I can never respond to it and it would be unfair.

My opponent does NOT refute my Value of Justice or my Value Criterion of Reducing Oppression therefore he concedes to my framework which must be the framework of this round, all arguments MUST link back to the value criterion of Reducing Oppression.

===Clark 1===

His first response is that porn is not an adequate indicator of society's belief, and that not all men seek to rape women. Clark is talking about how at the point where we live in a patriarchal society and many of the symbols of a patriarchal society (i.e porn, action movies where women need to be saved etc.) aren't looked down upon and are even tolerated then women are oppressed by this idea that they are weak. Porn isn't the only reason why women are seen as weak but there are certainly others. Also I use the Clark card in a different way than how my opponent responds to it. I use the Clark 1 card to make a connection as to why Domestic Abuse occurs. The reason for the abuse is because we live in a patriarchal society where many people believe they are strong when they dominate over weaker people which is the cause of Domestic Abuse.

His second response is that Women themselves have fantasies about rape then he provides castleman. This actually helps the Aff because the Aff is not focusing solely on women, rather, the Aff makes the connection from women to domestic abuse victims, so turn Castleman it only shows that women can also be abusers and other women are men can also be victims and shows how the patriarchal mindset is also extended to women. Affirming is the only way to end the patriarchal mindset. The turn on the Aff goes away because I don't have the mindset he tries to say I do, rather I work towards abolishing the mindset of Patriarchy

Turn Wood, at the point where we continue to allow them to be seen as victims the oppression continues. The Neg provides no solvency, only the Aff. The Aff is the only side abolishing this oppression and that is why you affirm.

===Contention 1===

His first response says that Clark doesn't provide any numbers, but Clark doesn't have to because she proves how the justice system fails systematically without any need of statistics.

His second response is that affirming doesn't solve, but Affirming solves more than Negating especially at the point where he provides no alternatives, victims must be provided an option to get out of the abuse.

His third response is that the Slippery Slope argument and Vigilante Justice. Cross-Apply the two arguments I made earlier about the idea of Vigilante Justice. On to the Slippery Slope argument. This argument is a Slippery Fallacy there IS a bright line, the bright line is the necessity to prevent any further damage which comes from the self-defense doctrine.

Extend Contention 1 it shows how the Neg cannot link into Reducing oppression because the Neg allows the oppression to continue. This is the second reason to Affirm.

===Contention 2===

His two responses aren't responsive to Clark 4 at all. Clark 4 talks about how when we affirm then the abuse victims will erode the myth of them being weak. Rather than address this he tries to steer the argument towards the argument that I am calling them victims. Clark 4 answers this extend it. It shows how when Abuse Victims don't allow themselves to be pushed any further then they won't be seen as victims. This is the third reason why you affirm because only by affirming will they not be seen as weak any longer.

Cross-Apply the arguments I just made to the arguments he makes against the second link (Which is the same as the first one)

Extend the actual second link which says that the abuser will not be allowed to continue to abuse more and more victims.

On to the NC

The NC tries to promote the proportionality argument

First a threat of death is a proportional response to a threat of death. Deadly Force doesn't always entail death.

Further my opponent still provides no solvency so even worse he is condoning the abuser to continue abusing the victim and this is immoral and wrong.

Reject the NC, at the point where his only reason to Negate is that its not proportional doesn't take out the Moral Justification because in the Neg world you Morally Obligate people to kill themselves or allow themselves to be killed this is immoral, we must affirm to provide Moral options out of the abuse.

So let’s start with the top. Extend my Oxford definitions of justice which specifically say "the quality of being fair and reasonable" and "the administration of the law or authority in maintaining this:" Therefore, I win right here because in order for justice, which is both of our values, to be upheld the law must do it. He doesn’t use the law, therefore, he can’t uphold his value

Extend my criterion of equality. This is the only way to link to justice. Extend my analysis that says that because justice is contingent on fair treatment, you must look to equality before all else. I give reasons to prefer equality, he doesn’t give any to prefer his VC, therefore, I win right there because he never shows equality

Even if you buy his VC, I’m solving oppression better, we'll get to that later

Extend Kant which says that no matter how much pain the victim is enduring, it is not worse than death. This means that the aff is inherently unequal because deadly force implies that the abuser will be killed.

Extend Stairs 1. I win right here because he precludes utilitarian impacts. Remember his analysis that “The idea in brief is simple: it is wrong to punish people for utilitarian reasons. Legal punishment must always be a response to guilt. If the core motive in punishing someone is to deter others, or to protect society, or to set an example, then the person punished is wronged; their humanity has not been respected.” I preclude any utilitarian arguments because we must look to equality of punishment there. Since he doesn’t provide that, I win right here.

Extend Stairs 2 which says that revenge is bad. His world is one of revenge, mine is one of equal punishment which precludes his utilitarian impacts.

Remember, even if he solves abuse 100% (which he doesn’t) I preclude and win off of the NC. He didn’t do nearly enough work on this and that will cost him

AC

He greatly mishandles the case turn. I argue that he perpetuates the mindset of women being victims, which is the stereotype, as shown by Wood. He himself says that this stereotype of women is the root cause of abuse. He perpetuates the stereotype because he says that women are the victims of domestic violence. By portraying women as the victims, he perpetuates the same stereotype which he fails to eradicate. Your ballot does not change any laws. The only impact that your ballot has is endorsing an advocacy. By affirming, you endorse the stereotype that causes abuse. Extend my analysis that says that this impact precludes all others because it will actually happen in the real world. If you vote for him, then you accept the negative mindset that says that women are victims. Negate to reject this mindset

So, extend that and I win there

Down the AC

His first response is simply offense for my case turn. By portraying women as “victims of repeated domestic violence” the very words he uses in the round cause a patriarchal mindset. His words cause abuse in the real world

He misunderstands Castleman. Castleman says that women fantasize about being raped by men, not about raping men. If they fantasize about the same patriarchal society that allegedly causes abuse, then they can’t be oppressed by that society. So this takes out solvency. Remember, affirming perpetuates women as the “victims” of domestic violence. Therefore, affirming perpetuates a bad mindset

Extend Wood. Wood shows how stereotypically women are portrayed as victims. My opponent continues this stereotype by affirming that women are victims. This proves the case turn even more

Affirming leads to vigilante justice. He doesn’t justify a brightline ever. He doesn’t say why vigilantism should only apply in domestic abuse cases. Therefore, affirming leads to vigilante justice in all situations, which risks oppression and inequality, so negating is the only way to solve both criterions on that level.

Voting in this round doesn’t actually change anything. Remember my analysis that says that all affirming does is endorse the mindset that causes abuse. Even if affirming would hypothetically solve the mindset, it doesn’t because an affirmative ballot doesn’t change anything. His discourse does occur however

The stereotype will occur no matter what. Extend my analysis that says that stereotypes and fantasies are divorced from reality. Regardless of whether women use deadly force or not, it won’t solve because stereotypes and fantasies are untrue. This takes out the entire warrant of Clark

Link 2 Deterrence

Extend that the abuser is assumed to be rational. If the abuser is irrational, than the abuser can’t be deterred. He never proved that abusers are rational, therefore, he can’t solve

No quantified evidence

Remember, my NC precludes utilitarian impacts which are all that he provides. Therefore, you can buy his whole case and I win

On Self Defense Underview

Just as a response to all of this, I think he misunderstands “deadly force.” In order for “deadly force” to be justified murder or killing of the abuser must also be justified, because deadly force at least risks death. Therefore, since he concedes that none of his cards justify murder or deadly force specifically, they aren’t sufficient to affirm

On Campbell

Literally all Campbell says is that situations of abuse are “different.” That doesn’t mean anything he tries to make it mean. It could, in fact mean that situation of abuse aren’t as bad, but if they are only “different” then there is no way that this card justifies deadly force.

Campbell thinks that the law can solve otherwise she wouldn’t use the law as justification. If the law is crap then why is she using a legal outlook to determine justification? This means his author thinks that neg can solve or is inconsistent. Either way, it is bad news for my opponent.

On Ayyilidz

It is an appeal to authority. Ayyilidz doesn’t even show how the law is patriarchal, not one example. Don’t buy this card

If self-defense is a patriarchal, male construct as Ayyildz says then why should we use it? We’ve already established that patriarchal mindsets cause abuse, so how can a patriarchal construct solve abuse? It can’t. Extend the turn

He concedes that the card doesn’t justify murder. If it doesn’t justify murder, then it can’t justify deadly force, because deadly force risks homicide inherently

Remember, he admits he doesn’t justify the self-defense doctrine. Even if you buy the underview, you can’t affirm

He says he doesn’t have to because it is justified by the law. But my opponent’s own cards say the law is patriarchal. Remember, he is using a patriarchal system to justify his position. That turns the whole case because a patriarchal system, which is the justification for self-defense, according to my opponent’s authors, causes abuse. Extend the massive turn

Back to Vigilantism

His first response is about how it can be just. Apply Oxford definition of justice which specifically says that justice has to be carried out by a government. He therefore, delinks himself from his value

Affirming does cause vigilantism. Use of deadly force by the victim is vigilantism. Affirming says that is permissible. Therefore, he justifies vigilantism

Brief Voting Issues

NC went almost cold-conceded. It precludes all his util impacts. Even if he solves abuse, that isn’t enough to win

His discourse stereotypes women as victims by placing them in the victim category. This mindset caused by his discourse causes abuse. This precludes all impacts in the round and turns the case

Definition of justice says that it must be equal and must be by government. He has no link to his value.

Rogue Fox: Sure thing. I looked to the Value Criterion of Equality because you made the analysis that they were virtually the same thing. I then had to evaluate well who promotes more equality and reduces more oppression. The Pro makes the argument that you provide no solvency (Which is true) and it perpetuates the idea that you condone Domestic Abuse. So I voted off of the fact that the Pro linked into your Value Criterion better than you could. I like Kant and Stairs but you had to couple that with the idea that there is some kind of solvency other than killing or else you can't support equality because you would allow Domestic Abuse to continue.

The preclusion argument had no weighing analysis as to why or how it outweighed all other impacts in the round. So I couldn't look to, also it didn't link to any value criterions.

What about the NC? The preclusion argument was made by the cards in Round 2 and dropped, and I know I made a really short reason in Round 2 to prefer the VC of equality over solving oppression. I don't necessarily disagree with your decision just curious how you evaluated the NC.

I'm basically just going to go down the flow, starting at the Framework debate.

The framework debate was slightly muddled at first because Con pretty much concedes the Pro sides framework.The only thing he tries to do to the value of justice is say that the Pro can never link into the value of justice, but Pro gave two solid reasons as to how there is no need to uphold law in order to gain justice and the second response stood as well about how when we affirm we say society tolerates the action, I feel Con's response didn't quite do it for me, Pro never says it will become a law that they can commit said action but rather they will not have a law that prohibits it. Now he makes no response to the value criterion until the second rebuttal where he does some kind of comparison analysis. I didn't look to the comparison analysis mainly because Pro never had a chance to respond to the analysis and second the analysis didn't do it for me because Con still fails to provide a reason as to why the Value criterion of reducing oppression is faulty. At the point where the Pro de-links the Con from his Value Criterion and extends his own coupled with the argument that Con pretty much provides no solvency to the issue of repeated Domestic Abuse Pro wins.

The Underview was just another place where I could vote Pro, Con totally mis-handles the Underview as well. The Underview was all about how the Aff was not only Morally Permissible but Legally permissible as well (through the self-defense doctrine) Con's responses weren't responsive to it at all and I can already vote off of it.

The turn was also mis-handled. I get what Pro says in order to get out of the turn about how he simply makes the connection of Domestic Abuse victims being seen as weak, and at the point where both sides recognize this idea and perpetuate it the turn goes away.

Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to PRO because he only had one rebuttal so I feel it was mis-conduct and unfair for Rogue Fox to post up more arguments that the Pro side can never answer now. RFD for Arguments will be posted in the comments section shortly. EDIT: S